Even with population declining slightly, it does little to disrupt due to the cycles of replenishment, and fact of money supply.

Trains are more disruptive then say a freeway, which is more of a constant noise our brain starts to tune out quickly.

What is more reasonable, a tenant going outside to smoke for a couple minutes each day or a tenant allowed to smoke inside, potentially creating smoke damage to the unit and surrounding units, and creating a hazard and disruption to other tenants in the building. 

This can lead to changes in the character of the area and potentially disrupt local communities.But the positives outweigh the Negatives !!

The only big disruption I can think of to this cycle was the COVID bull-run, where the market seemed to just skip the winter step-back.

Although it can be temporarily disruptive, if you are willing to move then you have a few more options available to you.

The risk of flooding itself, which is incredibly disruptive and can make your property uninhabitable to 3-6 months at best. 

The only counterpoint I could come up with is it seems unlikely someone who can afford $7k/mo rent wants to disrupt their home, their life and probably their work over saving $4k per year.

Our reason for NOT pulling one, is there are functioning businesses in the building, and the seller does not want to risk an issue that would cause loss of rent or un-realistic requests from the municipality that may disrupt the commercial tenants. 

My question is it legal for me to deny an applicant in this situation because of the disruption to other tenants, threats to their health and safety and additional costs?